Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(3)KLT217
Kurian Joseph, J.1. After the amendment to Rule 18 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by introducing a second proviso to the Rule, is the dismissal/removal from service of a Government servant. who is convicted on a criminal charge by a criminal court and sentenced to imprisonment and or with fine is automatic is the question to be decided in these cases.2. The petitioner in the former case Sudheer, an employee under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal on 1.10.2003 in C.C.340/1999 for an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.477/2003 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. By order dated 28.10.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)38; III(2005)BC238; 2005(1)KLT220
ORDERR. Basant, J.1. Is the proceedings Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 'inquiry' as defined Under Section 2(g) Cr.P.C? Is the sworn statement recorded before the Magistrate Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 'evidence'? Can the affidavit filed Under Section 145 of the N.I. Act be received by a Court to proceed further without insisting on the personal appearance of the complainant? These questions of contextual relevance are thrown up for consideration in this Revision Petition.2. The complainant, in a complaint Under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the learned Magistrate 'closing' the complaint. I extract below the impugned order:'Complainant absent. It appears that complainant is not interested to proceed with this case. The Criminal M.P. is closed'.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner first of all contends that a criminal complaint cannot be disposed of with an order like the one extracted above. The Code of Criminal Procedure spea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT621
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the Ombudsman appointed under Chapter XXV B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 competent to proceed against a Municipality or Municipal Corporation? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in these two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in O.P.No. 9483 of 2002. These may be briefly noticed.2. The Municipal Corporation of Cochin and its Mayor are the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the order dated April 2, 2002 passed by the Ombudsman. By this order observations have been made against 'the entire body of elected members and officials'. No new projects can be executed without the approval of the Ombudsman. The petitioners allege that the order is without jurisdiction. The Ombudsman created under the Panchayat Raj Act has no jurisdiction 'over areas within the limits of the Corporation of Cochin'. The Act does not extend to Municipal Corporations. A body ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(3)KLT480
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These Original Petitions are filed by the members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom and the Commissioner and the previous Administrator of the Devaswom against the orders passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Trichur in C.M.P. No. 559 of 2002. By this order, the court has directed vigilance enquiry and further action on Ext. P1 complaint. Ext. P1 complaint is filed by one Suresh alleging certain allegations against the previous members of the Managing Committee and against the Administrator and Commissioner. As soon as the Complaint was received, Special Judge called for the remarks from the Commissioner and thereafter the impugned order was passed.2. The complaint is filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It further states that the audit was not taking place due to the mismanagement of the members of the Managing Committee. The Enquiry Commissioner got details from the Commissioner of Guruvayoor Devaswom and pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004CriLJ509; 2004(1)KLT873
S. Sankarasubban, J.1. These Original Petitions are filed by the members of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom and the Commissioner and the previous Administrator of the Devaswom against the order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Trichur in C.M.P. No 559 of 2002. By this order, the court has directed vigilance enquiry and further action on Ext. P1 complaint. Ext. P1 complaint is filed by one Suresh alleging certain allegations against the previous members of the Managing Committee and against the Administrator and Commissioner. As soon as the complaint was received, the Special Judge called for the remarks from the Commissioner and thereafter the impugned order was passed.2. The complaint is filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It further states that the audit was not taking place due to the mismanagement of the members of the Managing Committee. The Enquiry Commissioner got details from the Commissioner of Guruvayur Devaswom and pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT980
ORDERR. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C.No.440/99 pending before the C.J.M. Court, Kollam. They filed Crl. M.P. 6622/01 for dropping the proceedings as against them claiming protection under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. The above Crl.M.P. was dismissed by the court below. Aggrieved by the above order, petitioners have come up in revision challenging the above order and praying for an order dropping the proceedings pending against them.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 1st respondent complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.3. The 1st petitioner was the Circle Inspector and the 2nd petitioner was the Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station during the relevant period. The 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners and four other police officials alleging the commission of different offences including offences under Sections 307 and 305 read with Section 34 IPC. The case of the 1st re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4448
ORDERM R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The revision petitioners in these 26 cases are all accused in the connected cases pending trial before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. Of these, 12 revisions are by a contractor and 14 are filed by Engineers. An FIR was filed against them on 30-9-1985 reporting that the latter, while working as Engineers of various rank for works in the Attappady Valley Irrigation Project, Agali, during the period from 24-7-1978 to 9-11-1981, they committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official positions in the matter implementing a criminal conspiracy with the contractors aforementioned by placing four supply orders dated 17-11-80, 18-12-80, 19-2-81 and 3-2-81 for 95 numbers of 200mm Sluice valves in favour of M/s. Indira Engineering Corporation, Coimbatore, of which one of the accused is the Managing Partner causing loss of crores of rupees to the Government exchequer. After investigation, 13 charge sheets were filed on 10-3-1989 alleging ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2001CriLJ275
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the accused in S.C.No. 83/94 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Court, Thiruvalla challenging the order dated 18-3-2000 passed by the Court in Cri.M.P. No. 246/99.2. The petitioners are standing trial before the Asst. Sessions Court Thiruvalla for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 332 and 333 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(c) of the P.D.P.P. Act as per the charge-sheet laid by the C. I. of Police, Adoor in Crime No. 204/92 of Pandalam Police Station. The allegation is that the accused persons who belonged to the I.S.S. in protest against the assault of their leader Madani by the members of the R.S.S., formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in prosecution of their common object to cause grievous hurt and to prevent the police officers from discharging their official duty as public servants on 7-8-1992 at about 10.30 a.m. stopped K.S.R.T.C. buses bearing re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ52Ker
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Syndicate Bank and its officers against the judgment of the learned single Judge interfering with the order of dismissal of the first respondent from service on the basis of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. Learned single Judge also set aside the enquiry report dated July 20, 1989 and various orders issued pursuant thereto.2. Short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows. One M. Damodaran, applied for a vehicle loan of Rs. 17,000/-, from the Mulleria Branch of the Syndicate Bank for the purchase of a new autorikshaw. First respondent was functioning as the Manager of the said Branch at that time. First respondent-delinquent Officer agreed to arrange the loan, and as a precondition complainant was directed to remit margin money of Rs. 6000/- Complainant remitted the margin money in various instalments, final instalment of which was remitted on September 1, 1984. For sanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000CriLJ3311
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This M.C. is filed by the petitioner to direct the 2nd respondent, Director General of Police to take necessary action and to direct his subordinates to take all action contemplated under law against the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad for his criminal acts committed against the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a Police Constable with General No. 4317 in KAP-II Battalion now under suspension. According to the petitioner, on 27-1-2000 after his duty at Puthoor Matha Amrithananda Mayi Madam while he was proceeding to meet his uncle near the civil station in a bus some unfortunate incident happened. It is alleged that the petitioner has molested a women travelling in the bus, though according to him, he accidentally happened to touch the body of that woman. According to the petitioner, she got wild, raised hue and cry and tried to assault the petitioner and she got out of the bus and raised alarm. The constable who was on duty there, caught hold of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!